When attending the Rose Cafe event that Judge Miller held, I became aware of the numerous factors that go into making a final decision regarding the sentence of a convicted person. I knew that factors such as their background, past criminal experiences, and extent of evidence are particularly important when determining a sentence. However, what I had not know was the extent to which humanitarian factors affect the outcome of the case. Society normally views judges as impartial, law abiding people, atleast that’s what their job was. However, Judge Miller give insight into the copious amount of power that judges have in shaping the rest of a person life so factors such as empathy, and if the accused feels remorse and is willing to pledge to be a better member of society, are all factors that play into the final outcome and decision.

The idea that there are a plethora of factors that influence the verdict of a case without having a system that quantisizes these factors is interesting. Although judges are said to be impartial and follow the law strictly, the question begs the degree to which certain “humanitarian” factors hold a greater weight against certain “factual” factors and whether the subjective discrepancy that can occur between these groups is the reason for the growing number of court case appeals. I believe that although it can be difficult to assign numerical values to the diverse cases that are seen, the resistance to do can pose increasing questions regarding the required objectivity of a judge’s decisions.  In fact, numerical scores from one case can be carried through with other cases to expedite court case processes since many times court cases take up a lot of time, which would be helpful to jurors. The extended length of the court cases I believe is partly due to the fact that there aren’t formalized systems that are used, besides relying on precedent cases.